My Theory, put a torpedo where the Bombardier was, and put a 2000HP Monarch in the nose, and a hook in the rear, and 20mm wing guns where the wing bomb cells were. Change that '257mph' to '357mph'
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I presume the Gladiator as a 'strike' aircraft was a finger trouble moment but the closest predecessor to the Fulmar was the Skua which itself was the replacement for the Osprey as a strike fighter. Stressed and trialled for the strike task, albeit without the steepest dive crutch of the Skua, the Fulmar would be replaced by the Firefly which also was strike tasked. That the Fulmar was solely employed as a fighter as the main role was an accident of history. If the RN had a purpose carrier fighter then the Fulmar would have carried much the same tasks as the Firefly. We should see the Fulmar as a better Skua and not a poor Hurricane. An early Firefly not Seafire.
Much as I would like to see how fast the butterfly can flap with a snort of cocaine, it is difficult to find a plausible POD to get a more powerful motor into a service Fulmar in 1940 or even 1941/2. However the airframe is a sound multi role one save the torpedo launching. I just wonder if it could be possible to, with as little change as possible, squeeze a torpedo under a Fulmar?
View attachment 744294
I personally have severe doubts but if one could then the RN only needs one type on its carriers. The multi role Fulmar. Fairey had proposed more than one torpedo carrying monoplane alternative to the Swordfish to Their Lordships. The wing area should lift it off the deck. However, I digress well beyond the OP.
The trick is arranging AH to get a bigger engine Monarch/Vulture/Sabre/Griffon/Centaurus and do so in time for the Fulmar Mk1 to have it.
If Rolls Royce had ditched the Peregrine amd Exe early and thrown the resources into maintaining momentum on the Vulture one might not totally implausibly get a Vulture Fulmar in time but that means a 1940 Vulture production date.
AIUI, we're seeking to make a smaller, single-seat Fulmar not a better Seafire or Sea Hurricane. But most of the thread seems to want to debate the latter two aircraft. But what of the Fulmar?
I'm sure with the right specs it would have been. They had a lot of very good designers and firms. Put Gloster on it. or De Havilland. Or Supermarine. The problem as i see it here was with the specs.
My Theory, put a torpedo where the Bombardier was, and put a 2000HP Monarch in the nose, and a hook in the rear, and 20mm wing guns where the wing bomb cells were. Change that '257mph' to '357mph'
A memo, dated 11 February 1942, by the Airscrew Panel of the Aerodynamics Sub-Committee says that the P.24 was able to produce the following during testing in the 24' wind tunnel:
1,570hp @ 2,400rpm
1,618hp @ 2,600rpm
1,652hp @ 2,800rpm
1,680hp @ 3,000rpm
This is at the rated altitude of 10,000ft.
It was suggested that 1,800hp may be obtained at 3,000rpm if the supercharger drive ratio was lowered.
The airscrews (Fairey design and manufacture) and engine were cleared for 3,200rpm in a dive.
P.S. To Minister [of Aircraft Production?] from G.P.Bulman, dated 19.12.1940 states:
"The decision [not to proceed with the P.24] was based on the fact that while the engine, in form, has many attractive features, much development would be needed to bring it up in output which would render it suitable for the R.A.F. purposes. even then no place for its production is available.
"Since the engine completed the 50 hours type test [British military ratings used a 114h type test IIRC] at a rating of 1275 b.h.p. with a maximum power of 1490, a number of short individual tests have been made, up to powers of 1750 b.h.p., but there have been no consistently long periods of running at the higher output owing to the series of troubles with the superchargers and main bearings, confirming our view that considerable development would be required to clear the higher power, the firm having inadequate facilities for such development.
"The running at 2,200 h.p. mentioned in the letter was confined to four readings of 2 mins. duration each at 1,100 h.p. output on half the engine only (the engine is in effect two separate motors in one carcass)."
Fairey P./24 Engine: Development Prospects.
D.G.R.D.
This matter has already been put to Sir Henry Tizard as in my Minute, copy Enclosure 2A. 2B, copy of minute to P.S. to Minister also refers, relative to a letter addressed personally to the Minister by the Chief Draughtsman of the Fairey Engine Section.
Our agreement with Maurice Wright was that the engine should be put in cold storage for the reasons that
(a) very considerable additional development for which the firm have no facilities will be needed to bring the engine up to an output appropriate to any of our requirements,
(b) there are no production facilities available for it.
I have given much thought to the possible employment of Captain Forsyth with respect, for example, to the production supervision of engine power eggs. His temperament, however, is difficult, and the engine firms would certainly not respond happily to an association with him, involving his full admission to their own engine and power egg developments [OUCH!].
In his natural enthusiasm for his own engine he has been led, unfortunately, to overstate his claims for the present state of its development, claiming powers which have been only obtained by snap readings and associated with a variety of failures.
D.E.P.&D
22.12.40
Fairey gets criticised for wanting to build its own aircraft designs, but other companies were just the same.
Hawker Aircraft designed the Hurricane. RAF wanted more than Hawker Aircraft had capacity to build. So a new contract is given to Gloster. BUT Hawker & Gloster were both part of the Hawker Siddeley Aircraft group of companies, which from 1935 also included Avro and Armstrong Whitworth. Keeps the profits in the family!
The commercial reality was and is, if you make someone else's product they will take a cut of the overall profit usually by way of licence fees.
The design and production capacity used to make the Fulmar will go to whatever we're making instead.No sure if there was any spare capacity.
We can't know since the smaller Fulmar doesn't exist. The problem with the actual Seafire is that it doesn't enter service in folding wing for until mid 1943, a few months from Italy's surrender, Germany's decisive defeat at Kursk and Japan's defeat at Guadalcanal - the Axis were already on the ropes by the Seafire III's arrival. If a folding wing Seafire can be produced instead of the Fulmar, so that it enters service in spring 1940 to fight in the MTO I'd say that should be good enough.Are we certain that Fairey could make a "slightly smaller Fulmar" that will outperform the Seafire?
Then you lose the long range reconnaissance and endurance capacity. The reconnaissance task would have to go to the Albacore or Swordfish and the strike role (albeit never used due to filling the fighter role) which all made up the Skua replacement need.The design and production capacity used to make the Fulmar will go to whatever we're making instead.
Which pretty much means it will be powered by Whatever engine was used to power the appropriate/corresponding Fulmars or the closest equivalent (change supercharger gear and/or impeller) No substituting Merlin XX engines for Merlin VIII.The capacity used to make the Fulmar will go to whatever we're making instead.
Whatever one may think of the Defiant it was invaluable as a high speed target tug and these were desperately needed. The Hawker Henley's were falling out of the sky with over stretched engines. The Botha made up the numbers in twin engined pilot and crew training. No Bothas then you have to find something else to do the task. At this time it is very much an 'either or' situation not an 'as well' one.Which pretty much means it will be powered by Whatever engine was used to power the appropriate/corresponding Fulmars or the closest equivalent (change supercharger gear and/or impeller) No substituting Merlin XX engines for Merlin VIII.
Not much love for the Fulmar.
The RN faced a lot of challenges.
For those that see an Improved Fulmar as enabling the RN to take on the Japanese 1941/42?
The four Illustrious carriers would carry a bit over 200 planes even using some deck parks as used later in the war. Adjust as needed/desired for 1941/early 42.
The four Japanese carriers lost at Midway could carry close to 300 planes. According to one source they carried 248 (?) at Midway.
The 3 US carriers carried 233 planes (?)
You can pick up spare airframe capacity by canceling Defiants and Bothas.
View attachment 744543
My Theory, put a torpedo where the Bombardier was, and put a 2000HP Monarch in the nose, and a hook in the rear, and 20mm wing guns where the wing bomb cells were. Change that '257mph' to '357mph'
If we're going to look at putting an oversized, underpowered RAF bomber onto a carrier, my vote's for the Wellesley.
FAA variant of Vickers Wellesley
Okay, now we‘re really going to trigger our resident contrarians. Come out ye all, don‘t be shy. It’s early 1937, some overfunded, bored or insane procurement mgr at the Air Ministry asks Vickers to design a carrier-capable variant of the Vickers Wellesley. Requirements include the ability...ww2aircraft.net
The reconnaissance task would have to go to the Albacore or Swordfish
Are we certain that Fairey could make a "slightly smaller Fulmar" that will outperform the Seafire?
What of the Spitfire for naval use, proposed by Supermarine, which had an entirely new wing design? Would that be considered a new type?
The navalised Spitfire, which would have been built by Fairey, would surely have been a better carrier fighter than the historical Seafire.
How would that compare with the "slightly smaller Fulmar"?
Supermarine had a proposal pre-war that would have been built by Fairey. And Supermarine were very busy a) trying to ramp up Spitfire production and b) trying to improve the Spitfire.
Gloster were busy building Hurricanes, then Typhoons, then working on jet powered aircraft.
de Havilland were busy making the Mosquito, in part so they didn't have to build other manufacturer's designs. Also, they were busy making trainers.
Fairey had capacity, that's why the proposed navalised Spitfire would have been built by them. But they preferred to make their own designs.
Then you lose the long range reconnaissance and endurance capacity. The reconnaissance task would have to go to the Albacore or Swordfish and the strike role (albeit never used due to filling the fighter role) which all made up the Skua replacement need.
If there was a spare capacity it was with Westlands continuing to build Lysanders even after they were shown to be inadequate and scheduled to be replaced by Tomahawks. They would be lobbying though to make more Whirlwinds, but not as carrier fighters. It would have the Perseus and Mercuries ordered for the Lysanders FWIW.
Then you lose the long range reconnaissance and endurance capacity. The reconnaissance task would have to go to the Albacore or Swordfish and the strike role (albeit never used due to filling the fighter role) which all made up the Skua replacement need.
If there was a spare capacity it was with Westlands continuing to build Lysanders even after they were shown to be inadequate and scheduled to be replaced by Tomahawks. They would be lobbying though to make more Whirlwinds, but not as carrier fighters. It would have the Perseus and Mercuries ordered for the Lysanders FWIW.
I don't think it would necessarily out perform a Seafire - the goal would be to have close to that performance (probably not comparable on climb rate, but at least close on speed) while having say, twice the range.
Can you tell me more details about the proposed "Naval Spitfire's" redesigned wing? Was it just redesigned for folding or was it larger, capable of carrying more fuel?